Panelist Kevin James was struck by the bag checks, metal
detectors and visible police presence at a Friday night event about
the Danish cartoons that depict the Prophet Muhammad.
But despite all the precautions, the event went off without
heated protests or violent reactions sometimes seen in response to
the cartoons, which have sparked heated debates both locally and
around the world.
The campus group L.O.G.I.C. (Liberty, Objectivity, Greed,
Individualism and Capitalism) sponsored the cartoon display and
panel discussion. About 180 people attended, according to
university police. L.O.G.I.C. promotes the idea of Objectivism, a
philosophy developed by Ayn Rand.
The event, which was held at UCLA, was subdued in comparison to
the chaotic atmosphere of protest at UC Irvine earlier this month.
A student group held a similar event at UCI, at which the
controversial cartoons were displayed and a panel discussion was
held.
About 200 Muslim students protested the UCI event.
But at UCLA, the Muslim Student Association reacted differently,
holding an event earlier in the evening to explain situations in
which freedom of speech should be curbed. The group said such a
situation includes the publication and display of the cartoons.
The series of 12 cartoons depicts what many believe to be
negative images of the Prophet Muhammad. The cartoons go against an
Islamic principle that the prophet should not be depicted in any
fashion.
Representing different religious and political principles, the
panel consisted of four speakers ““ Avi Davis, a journalist,
commentator and documentarian on the Middle East; Khaleel Mohammed,
an assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State
University; Yaron Brook, the president and executive director of
the Ayn Rand Institute; and Kevin James, a KABC radio talk show
host.
Three posters behind the panelists displayed the cartoons of the
Prophet Muhammad: One showed the prophet’s turban depicted as
a bomb, another showed a cartoonist drawing the prophet, and a
collection of the other 10 cartoons was mounted on the third.
The panelists spoke about their opinions on free speech and the
publications of the cartoons. Then, each had an additional two
minutes to respond to the moderator’s questions.
The moderator questioned panelists on a variety of topics such
as whether freedom of speech includes the right to offend and what
way Western media should have responded to the Muslim reactions to
the cartoons.
Mohammed, the only panelist objecting to the cartoons’
publication, said that Muhammad’s representation in a
negative light is what has offended certain parts of the Muslim
world ““ not the actual depiction of the prophet.
Mohammed also said that if freedom means the publication of the
cartoons is to be allowed, he does not want to be a part of it.
“If this is your idea of freedom, if you take the
religious values of 1.4 billion people and demonize them, we
don’t call that freedom. We don’t want that
freedom,” Mohammad said.
But Brook said the cartoons’ content is irrelevant. He
said free speech means one has the right to say, draw and otherwise
express opinions, which would all be meaningless if one cannot
offend.
But that freedom, he said, does not extend to promoting
violence.
The founding fathers “took on the mightiest power for
their time to defend their and our right to speak freely, our right
to offend, our right to say whatever we want to say,” Brook
said. “(But) you have no right to incite violence. You have
no right to call to the death of people.”
Alongside the posters of the cartoons, there were two large
photographs: One showed an image of a man with a head wrap
concealing his face, holding a sign stating “Freedom go to
hell” near a protest in the Middle East. The other showed a
crowd of protestors flooding London streets and calling for the
deaths of cartoonists.
Brook pointed to the photographs, saying that it was those
images, not the cartoons, that people should be worried about.
Before the event, James had been unsure about his stance
regarding free speech. He said the presence of university police
solidified his opinion ““ that the community should be able to
discuss controversial issues without additional security.
Mohamad Ahmad, a member of Muslim Students Association, attended
the event out of curiosity about how the panel would engage in
intellectual discourse ““ but what he found, he said, was not
scholarly discussion.
“(The panelists) would make blanket statements about
certain issues immediately after admitting complete lack of
knowledge on that issue,” he said. “It’s funny
how you can make such a confident statement about a comprehensive
religious text when you’ve never studied it.”
But Jennifer Propper, a first-year history student, left the
debate more confident in the campus’ ability to discuss
hot-button issues.
“It’s refreshing every time there’s an event
where the barriers of political correctness are broken,” she
said. “I think that the best, the most mature and most
significant debate that we should be hearing occurs when you rebel
against that political correctness.”
With reports from Anthony Pesce, Bruin reporter.